title: authors

1

Title: 1

Use-wear analysis of Early Mesolithic flake axes from South-eastern Norway. 2

Authors: 3

Steinar Solheim1) (Corresponding author); Guro Fossum1); Helena Knutsson 2) 4

1) Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, 5

PB 6762 St. Olavs plass, 0130 Oslo, Norway. [email protected] 6

2) Stoneslab, 7

Säves v. 40, 75263 Uppsala, Sweden. [email protected] 8

E-mail: 9

[email protected] 10



Abstract: 13

The flake axe is one of the most debated stone tools of the Scandinavian Mesolithic. Few analysis 14

have however been carried out in order to investigate the actual function and use of the tool. In this 15

paper we present the results from use-wear analysis of 42 flake axes from nine Early Mesolithic sites 16

(9200-8400 cal. BC) from South-eastern Norway. This study demonstrates that the flake axe was a 17

multi-tool used for several tasks and for working different raw materials. The results from the use-18

wear analysis are related to morphological variation among the analysed specimens. This suggests that 19

there is no clear cut relation between morphological variation and function. 20

Highlights: 21

New insight into use of Early Mesolithic flake axes from Scandinavia. 22

Use-wear analysis proposes several functions for Early Mesolithic flake axes. 23

There are no significant differences between morphological variation and use/function. 24

Key words: 25

Use-wear; flake axe; Early Mesolithic; South-eastern Norway 26

27

28

29

30

31

32

2

USE-WEAR ANALYSIS OF EARLY MESOLITHIC FLAKE AXES FROM SOUTH-33 EASTERN NORWAY. 34

1. INTRODUCTION 35

1.1 Background and aims 36

The flake axe is one of the most debated stone tools of the Scandinavian Mesolithic. During the last 37

130 years, the function of the tool has been widely discussed and numerous suggestions to its use and 38

function have been made (table 1). Today, the most agreed-upon hypothesis is that the flake axe 39

primarily was used for butchering and scraping the skin and blubber of sea mammals (e.g. Schmitt, 40

2013; Bang-Andersen, 2013). In a recent paper, however, Glørstad (2013) suggests that the flake axe 41

was related to the Early Mesolithic groups’ marine adaptation and, more specifically, to make log 42

boats. Glørstad’s main argument is the close relationship between the distribution of flake axes in 43

Norway and Sweden and the Preboreal coastlines (figure 1). This theory is criticised, as several 44

researchers consider the axes as unfit for woodworking (Bang-Andersen, 2013: 26; Wikell and 45

Petterson, 2013: 40–41; Schmitt et al., 2009). 46

47

Even though the use of Mesolithic flake axes has been heavily debated, detailed analyses of the use 48

and functionality of the tool type has been few. Numerous papers discuss what the axes were used for 49

and, maybe even more eagerly, what they not were used for. To our knowledge, only three use-wear 50

analysis of flake axes from the Scandinavian Mesolithic, that can provide insight to the tool’s function 51

in greater detail, have been carried out (Juel Jensen, 1988; Thorsberg, 1985; Knutsson 1982).Thus, 52

most of the presented evidence is circumstantial relying on factors such as geographic distribution and 53

analogies to modern and ethnographic tools, or a combination of the two (Schmitt et al. 2009: 14; 54

Fuglestvedt, 2012; Bang-Andersen, 2003: 13). 55

56

Within this background we have carried out use-wear analysis of 42 Early Mesolithic flake axes from 57

South-eastern Norway. Here we present results from the use-wear analysis combined with results from 58

technological and morphological investigations including raw material studies. The main aims are to 1) 59

identify use-wear on Early Mesolithic flake axes, 2) analyse what contact material that caused use-60

wear, 3) investigate if use-wear traces related to different activities could be identified on the same 61

tool, and 4) investigate if different use and function could be related to morphological differences. 62

3

63 Figure 1: Distribution of flake axes in Norway. The map to the right show distribution of flake axes in 64

South-eastern Norway as well as the location of the analysed sites and place names mentioned in the 65

test. All data retrieved from Unimus.no (6. April 2017). Figure: Steinar Solheim 66

67

4

Author Interpretation

Sophus Müller (1888) Cleaver

Knut Kjelmark (1903) Adze

Otto Rydbeck (1916) Chopper/axe

Terkel Mathiassen (1937, 1948) Axe (Knife, scraper)

Jens Troels-Smith (1937) Woodworking tool, chopper/axe

Åke Fredsjö (1953) Shellfish knife

Helena Knutsson (1982) Scraper, knife, wood, raw hide

Helle Juel-Jensen (1988) Butchering tool

Kalle Thorsberg (1985) Scraping (hide), wood working

Hans Kindgren (1995) Scrapers (hide)

Sveinung Bang-Andersen (2003) Ulus/skin scraper, marine resources

Ingrid Fuglestvedt (2012) Clubs/hatchets, reindeer

John A. Havstein (2012) Ulus/skin scraper /butchering tool, marine resources

Lou Schmitt (2013), Schmitt et al. (2009) Ulus/skin scraper, marine resources

Håkon Glørstad (2013) Woodworking tool, log boats

Table 1: During the last 130 years researchers have suggested various functions for the flake axe. 68

Some of the most central works are referred to in the table. In the last decade the interpretation of the 69

flake axe as an ulu has gained increasing popularity. 70

71

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 72

2.1 Definition, chronology and distribution of flake axes 73

In Norway and Western Sweden the flake axe is dated to the Early Mesolithic period, c. 9400 – 8300 74

cal. BC, and is considered a chronological marker (Bjerck, 2016; Schmitt, 2015). The tool type is an 75

integrated element of the Early Mesolithic groups’ tool kit and is regularly found at sites dated to the 76

period (Bjerck, 2016; Åstveit, 2014; Waraas, 2001). 77

The flake axe is one of few formal macro tools of the Early Mesolithic in Norway, and several efforts 78

have been made to provide a standardised definition of the tool. Attempts have also been made to 79

divide the tool into subcategories based on differences in shape, symmetry, trimming, edge angles, 80

production concepts etc. These variances have traditionally been linked to chronological differences 81

(Troels-Smith, 1937, 1939; Lidén, 1938; Fredsjö, 1953; Althin, 1954; Brinch Petersen, 1966; 82

Andersson et al., 1975). There is a general agreement that a flake axe is made of a large flake or disc, 83

and that some of the flake or disc’s original ventral surface must be part of the axe’s working edge. 84

The working edge may be modified and re-sharpened by detaching the worn-out edge with a blow to 85

its side (Andersson et al., 1975: 16; Bjerck, 1983: 17). Flake axes in general display large 86

morphological variation related to differences in tool blank size and form (raw material availability), 87

and also to later modifications of the tool (edge rejuvenation) (Eymundsson et al. 2017). 88

Despite morphological variation and a pragmatic adaptation to blank size and shape, the flake axe 89

production concept (schéma opératoire) is surprisingly stringent. Generally, a flake axe is produced 90

and shaped by applying two techniques: side edge flaking and thinning. The lateral sides of the axe are 91

shaped by removing diagnostic side edge flakes either from the dorsal side or the original ventral 92

surface side, of which the latter is less common. To reduce the thickness, the dorsal side is often 93

modified by the removal of thinning flakes. This production concept usually results in an axe with a 94

trapezoid cross section (figure 2). 95

5

96

Figure 2: A selection of analysed flake axes from Early Mesolithic sites at Pauler, Vestfold County, 97

South-eastern Norway. Photo: Kirsten Helgeland/Museum of Cultural History. 98

6

Most flake axes are found at sites in the coastal region (cf. figure 1). They are distributed from Østfold 99

County in southeast, along the southern coast to western Norway, up along the northwestern coast and 100

all the way north to Finnmark (Breivik and Callanan, 2016: 12; Granados, 2011: 68, 75; Bjerck, 1995). 101

North-western Norway, South-western Norway and the Oslo fjord region represents the main 102

concentration areas both in sheer numbers but also regarding number of sites containing flake axes. In 103

some parts of coastal Norway, such as the c. 120 km long stretch from Sognefjorden to Stad, no axes 104

have been found. The lack of axes in this specific area can partially be explained by the rising sea level 105

during the Holocene and that the Early Mesolithic sites are buried under beach sediments (Bjerck, 106

1986: 105–107; 1994: 46). 107

2.2 Archaeological data 108

2.2.1 Axes and sites 109

A total of 42 axes and edge flakes were chosen for analysis. The flake axes and edge flakes that are 110

included originate from nine excavated sites in South-eastern Norway, dated between 9200 and 8400 111

cal. BC (table 2). Eight sites are situated in Telemark and Vestfold Counties and one in Oslo. 112

# Site Cal. BC Type Lenght

axe

Width

axe

Thickness

axe

Lenght

edge

Shape edge,

profile

Shape edge,

front

Flint type

1 Pauler 1 9200-8900 Flake axe 67,9 69,5 17,1 69,3 Asymetrical Straight Coarse

2 Pauler 1 9200-8900 Flake axe 67,6 63,6 21,4 58,5 Symetrical-

asymetrical

Convex Medium

3 Pauler 1 9200-8900 Flake axe 72,9 45,6 24,1 42,8 Asymetrical, w.

concave edge

Irregular Coarse

4 Pauler 1 9200-8900 Edge

corner

-

5 Pauler 1 9200-8900 Flake axe 46,0 42,7 17,6 39,3 Asymetrical Protruding mid

part

Medium-

fine


asymetrical

Convex Fine

7 Pauler 1 9200-8900 Edge flake 12,2 32,6 4,3 31,8 Asymetrical Weak convex Medium

8 Pauler 1 9200-8900 Edge flake 22,5 44,0 5,0 41,9 Asymetrical? Straight/weak

convex

Medium

9 Pauler 1 9200-8900 Edge flake 13,1 45,7 6,9 41,1 Asymetrical Convex Medium

10 Pauler 2 9150-8850 Flake axe 52,3 37,5 19,9 29,9 Asymetrical Weak convex Fine

11 Pauler 3 9000-8700 Flake axe 53,9 51,4 17,5 47,5 Asymetrical Olique Medium


asymetrical

Weak convex Fine


14 Pauler 3 9000-8700 Flake axe 55,4 36,9 15,5 33,2 Symetrical Weak convex Medium

15 Pauler 3 9000-8700 Flake axe 48,0 39,1 16,2 36,5 Asymetrical Oblique convex Medium

16 Pauler 3 9000-8700 Flake axe 45,6 40,4 13,6 39,3 Asymetrical Straight,

rounded corners

Medium


18 Pauler 3 9000-8700 Flake chisel 61,9 25,3 18,5 25,3 Asymetrical Rounded V-shape

fine

19 Pauler 3 9000-8700 Flake chisel 43,2 24,1 11,4 19,7 Asymetrical, w. concave edge

Straight Fine

7

20 Pauler 3 9000-8700 Flake chisel 43,5 24,3 14,2 17,0 Asymetrical Straight/weak

angular

Fine

21 Pauler 4 8950-8650 Flake axe 50,4 45,6 17,8 45,6 Asymetrical Weakly rippled Fine

22 Pauler 4 8950-8650 Flake axe 58,4 42,1 24,3 40,5 Asymetrical S-shape Fine

23 Pauler 4 8950-8650 Flake axe 42,9 37,5 17,8 34,8 Asymetrical Straight Fine

24 Pauler 4 8950-8650 Flake axe 57,5 49,5 18,6 37,5 Asymetrical Weak convex Medium

25 Pauler 4 8950-8650 Fragment - Medium

26 Pauler 4 8950-8650 edge flake - Medium

27 Pauler 4 8950-8650 Flake axe 58,3 44,7 20,8 43,8 Asymetrical Weak convex Medium

28 Pauler 4 8950-8650 Flake axe 54,3 39,8 16,6 37,6 Asymetrical Convex Medium

29 Pauler 6 8850-8550 Flake

chisel

81,0 30,2 16,1 10,8 Asymetrical Narrow convex Medium

30 Bakke 8850-8550 Flake axe 51,9 28,8 16,4 21,7 Concave edge Weak concave Medium

31 Bakke 8850-8550 Flake axe 53,2 29,1 21,2 19,3 Asymetrical Straight Medium

32 Bakke 8850-8550 Flake axe 40,2 24,8 11,8 17,3 Asymetrical Straight- weak

concave

Medium

33 Bakke 8850-8550 Flake axe 48,8 33,1 16,2 27,7 Asymetrical Straight, weak

S-shape

Fine

34 Bakke 8850-8550 Flake axe 44,6 30,0 15,3 29,4 Asymetrical Straight Medium

35 Bakke 8850-8550 Flake

axe/chisel

54,5 29,2 14,2 12,9 Asymetrical Straight,

uneven, two-

edged?

Coarse


axe/chisel


uneven, two-

edged?

Fine


axe/chisel

52,9 23,4 11,3 12,3 Asymetrical Straight, uneven,

two-edged?

Fine


axe/chisel


uneven, two-

edged?

Medium

39 Elgsrud 8950-8700 Edge flake 29,7 46,8 10,2 44,1 asymetrical, w.

concave edge

Straight, weak S-

shape,

asymetric?

Medium

40 Tinderholt

1

8600-8300 Flake axe 51,6 44,5 19,3 39,7 Asymetrical Weak convex Fine-

medium

41 Tinderholt

1

8600-8300 Flake axe

42 Hydal 4 8400-8200 Flake axe 58,6 45,9 15,0 31,6 Asymetrical Straight Medium

Table 2: The axes that were chosen for analysis. Specimens in bold have use-wear traces. All 113

measurements are given in mm. Figure: Steinar Solheim 114

2.2.2 Technology, morphology, raw materials 115

Some researchers have suggested that the flake axes display morphological changes over time, with 116

more extensive flaking and thinning as well as the introduction of so-called flake chisels at sites 117

younger than 9000 cal. BC. Also, the length of the flake axe’s working edge appears to decrease 118

towards the end of the Early Mesolithic (Nyland and Amundsen, 2012: 152, 157; Jaksland and Fossum, 119

2014). This trend has also been noticed on axes from the latest part of the Early Mesolithic in southern 120

Scandinavia (Johansson, 1998: 114). The differences in working edge length could indicate functional 121

8

differences between axes dated to the beginning of Early Mesolithic and axes from the latter part of 122

the period (Jaksland and Fossum, 2014). 123

The axes analysed in this study are found at sites dated within an 800-year time span, covering large 124

parts of the Early Mesolithic period. The morphology of the analysed axes varies, but is in accordance 125

with the above-mentioned definition of a flake axe. The majority of the axes are made of larger flakes, 126

which vary in length and in thickness. Eight axes have an unmodified original ventral surface, and the 127

lateral sides are shaped from the ventral side. The lateral sides of the remaining axes were shaped from 128

the dorsal side. The majority of axes are thinned by flaking, but the extent of flaking varies. Some 129

display a more extensive thinning and may resemble core axes. This applies especially to the narrow-130

edged axes, termed flake chisels. Most of these axes are from sites dated to the latter part of the Early 131

Mesolithic, and are in line with the chronological tendencies as described above. Evidently, the tool 132

blank size and shape have guided the shaping of the axes, and this shows the flexibility of the flake 133

axe production concept. Even though it appears to be chronological differences with regard to the 134

extent of thinning, the production concept is rather persistent. We interpret the noted morphological 135

differences as related to raw material availability but this should be further explored by analysing a 136

larger data set. 137

Different flint types have been used for axe production, and the types are divided into subgroups based 138

on the flint’s grain size: Fine (translucent), fine (matte), medium, and coarse. Fine-grained translucent 139

flint and medium-grained flint are most common and make up 38 % and 44 %, respectively. Few axes 140

are made of coarse flint (13 %) and matte fine-grained flint (6 %). The variation in raw material 141

composition applies to the earliest Early Mesolithic sites as well as to sites from the latter part of the 142

period (table 2). Many axes have eroded cortex on the dorsal side, indicating that the blanks were 143

detached from (small) beach nodules. 144

The working edge is the most essential part of the tool, and establishing a functional edge appears to 145

be more significant than where it was placed on the original blank. Most axes have an unsymmetrical 146

working edge (88 %), and the edge is strait (42 %) or convex (36 %). The angle measurements of the 147

working edge have a largest and a smallest value, and the difference between these two values varies. 148

This suggests that the axes were not produced in order to establish and maintain a uniform working 149

edge. The working edge length varies between 10.8 to 69.3 mm, and variation is apparent within axe 150

assemblages from the different sites. Flake chisels are identified at three sites. These have a particular 151

narrow edge, and the edge length is often less than the actual width of the tool’s body. 152

2.3 Use-wear analysis 153

Helena Knutsson conducted the use-wear analysis. All microscopic analysis for the present study was 154

carried out with a Nikon Epiphot incident light microscope, using mainly magnifications of 50× and 155

400×. The wear features were documented using a microscope camera (Nikon Ds-U2) and related 156

software (NIS-Elements D 3.0). This allows for a sequence of digital photographs taken at different 157

heights to be combined into one extended focus micrograph. When multiple use-wear traces were 158

identified a stereomicroscope of type Nikon SMZ 800 Nikon with 10x and 69x enlargement was used. 159

160

All axes passed through standard cleaning routines. The specimens were first kept in weak (1–3%) 161

HCl-solution for 24 hours. Furthermore, they were rinsed with tap water and put into an ultrasonic 162

bath in distilled water for 2 minutes. The purpose of the acid treatment and ultrasonic bath is to 163

remove microscopic particles of sediment that have adhered to the tool surface while buried in the soil. 164

Next the artefacts were kept in weak NaOH-solution for 5 minutes in order to remove grease and other 165

9

traces of handling that usually cover the artefact surfaces. This phase was completed with a 2 minutes’ 166

ultrasonic bath. The specimens were air-dried after cleaning. If needed, handling grease was removed 167

from the axes with acetone or ultrasonic bath during the analysis. 168

169

Use-wear analysis is the study of damages and traces that are (microscopically) visible on a tool and 170

which are developed when the tool is used. The characteristics of the traces vary depending on the 171

contact material that is worked and the direction in which the tool is used (Vaughan, 1985). The 172

interpretation of use-wear on prehistoric tools rests on different parameters built on documented 173

damages and use-wear traces from experiments with replicated tools. The experimental work carried 174

out by Kjel Knutsson (1988) has demonstrated that wear visible on tool edges is the result of use and 175

that the characteristics of the different microscopic traces vary systematically according to use 176

situations (Knutsson et al., 2015: 518). Combinations of use-wear features seem to be related to how 177

the tool was used, but more importantly the different characteristics of the contact materials and the 178

material created between the tool surface and the contact material (Knutsson et al., 2015: 518–519; cf. 179

Knutsson, 1988). Here we have considered and documented the direction, location and distribution of 180

damages on the axes’ edge, butt and sides. The morphology of the damages and their depth at the 181

edges, indicate the angle the tool was held against the worked surface, the work direction and the 182

resistance of the contact material (Knutsson et al., 2015: Knutsson, 1988). 183

184

The analysis was carried out in order to investigate 1) if use-wear could be identified on Early 185

Mesolithic flake axes, 2) what contact material caused use-wear, and 3) whether use-wear on the same 186

tool can be related to one or several activities and contact materials. 187

188

3. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION 189

3.1 Use-wear 190

Of the 42 analysed flake axes, 13 of the chosen specimens could not be analysed due to damages to the 191

edge and the lack of use-wear. 10 specimens are either considered to be unused or that visible use-192

wear is caused by post depositional factor. A total of 19 specimens have use-wear traces that is 193

interpreted as caused by use in prehistory and these axes display variation in use direction and working 194

of different contact materials. 195

3.1.1 Direction of use and function 196

The direction of the use-wear indicates in what direction the tools were used. The direction of use is 197

easier to document and interpret than what type of contact material that caused use-wear on a tool. The 198

use-wear is, in most cases, a general alteration of the tool surface, or distinct striations in the tool 199

surface. 200

The dominant direction of tool use and/or tool movement is measured as the angle related to the 201

working edge and divided into three categories: 1) parallel to the edge (0–30°); 2) diagonal to the edge 202

(45–60°); and 3) transverse to the edge (80–100°). The three categories correspond to following use: 1) 203

cutting and sawing; 2) scraping, whittling, and chopping; 3) planing and use as adze. The placing of 204

the use-wear on the edge is also significant for the interpretation of the use-wear, and use-wear on one 205

side and/or both sides of the edge counts for differences in use. 206

The direction of use as defined by angle also affects the interpretation of function. We have used 207

modern tool names as analogy to describe function. Tools with linear damages transverse to the edge 208

10

are interpreted as adzes or planers. Adzes are identified by a combination of macroscopic and 209

microscopic damages that are more intensive on one side of the edge and continuing onto the axe body. 210

Planers have use-wear traces primarily on one side, most visible close the edge. Scrapers have use-211

wear traces around the edge, often more intensively on one side and usually away from the axe body. 212

Axes have use-wear traces on both sides of the edge and onto the axe body. The damages are often 213

seen behind the edge. 214

Re-sharpening of flake axes is often identified, and was made with a blow from one side of the edge, 215

normally removing the whole working edge. The angle of the edge changed and use-wear traces are 216

thus removed. This might, in some cases, explain to lack of use-wear traces on the analysed tools. 217

If one expected that the flake axe was a specialised tool, a rather homogenous picture of use-wear 218

should emerge from the analyses. This is not the case, and a total of 41 different use-wear traces are 219

documented on 19 different axes, implying that several axes have had different functions. The 220

majority (71 %) of the recorded use-wear is one sided, while 29 % is two sided (table 3). Most one 221

sided wear is interpreted as caused by planing (41 %) or scraping (17 %). Among the two sided wear, 222

sawing (10 %) is most frequent, while one axe have indications of being used for chopping, i.e. as an 223

actual axe (2 %). 224

The analysis shows variation in working movement with planing, scraping and sawing as the main 225

types of movement. The single trace of chopping indicates that this was not the flake axes’ primary 226

function. In sum, the direction of use indicates that the flake axe was used in a variety of ways. 227

Site One sided damages Two sided damages

Category Unused 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1

Movement Unused Planing Scraping Whittling Planing Chopping Sawing Cutting Grooving Shafting Sum

Suggested

tool Plane Scraper Whittle Adze Axe Saw Knife Burin

Pauler 1 1 6 2 2 2

1 1 15

Pauler 2 1

1

Pauler 3 5 3 2

1 2

13

Pauler 4 2 1

1 1

5

Pauler 6

1 1

1 3

Bakke 1 3 2

1 1

2 10

Elgsrud 1

1

Tinderholt

1

2

1

3

Hydal 4

1

1

Sum 11 17 7 3 2 1 4 2 1 4 52

Table 3: The different directions of documented use-wear and suggested function and tool. See 228

chapter 3.1.1 in main text for categories. Figure: Steinar Solheim 229

3.1.2 Contact material 230

The interpretation of contact material is here based primarily on comparisons with use-wear traces on 231

replicated tools (cf. Knutsson, 1982). The experimental procedures have, however, a disadvantage of 232

not being similar to the prehistoric use. This problem has been addressed, and the assumed uses of 233

tools have been broken down to single experimental procedures, in order to be able to classify 234

different traces and keep reliable comparative samples (Knutsson, 1988). For several reasons the 235

identification of worked materials has been a problematic issue in traceology. The method is criticised 236

11

for not being sufficiently precise to interpret the contact material (see discussion in Taipale, 2012; 237

Stevens et al., 2010: 2671; Odell, 2003: 138). Traces from working different raw materials can be hard 238

to identify, and different factors and processes affects traces of use-wear on the tools. Blind tests 239

focusing on definition and interpretation of use-wear on experimental tools have however been carried 240

out with good results (e.g. Bamforth et al., 1990; Bamforth, 1988; cf. Evans; 2014). 241

Postdepositional alteration of the use-wear is also an important factor. These issues have previously 242

been addressed (see Taipale’s (2012) summary of the field; further Stevens et al., 2010; Burroni et al., 243

2002; Levi-Sala, 1996; Plisson and Mauger, 1988; Knutsson, 1988). Quantitative discrimination of 244

use-wear traces have also been subject of method development (e.g. Stevens et al., 2010; Gonzales-245

Urquijo and Ibánez-Estevéz, 2002; Derndarsky and Ocklind, 2001; Knutsson et al., 1988) as well as 246

the effect of the raw material type on the development of use-wear (e.g. Lerner et al., 2007). 247

Based on experimental works with quartz Knutsson (1988) and Knutsson et al. (2015) have, with 248

reference to research in material science and the concept of tribology, shown how different contact 249

materials cause different use-wear features. The tribology in documentation and interpretation 250

provides possibility to explain and predict different types of wear features related to the contact 251

material and physical circumstances during contact, thus, not just describing their effects. We now 252

know that use-wear is the result of both mechanical and chemical processes. Even though experiments 253

with replicated tools may differ from actual prehistoric use, it is a valid method for testing different 254

variables (Rots and Plisson, 2014: 154; Van Gijn, 2014: 168). 255

# Site Direction 1 Material 1 Direction 2 Material 2 Direction 3 Material 3 Hafting Material 1 Material 2

1 Pauler 1 Plane Wood Whittle Wood Adze Wood

2 Pauler 1 Plane Antler/bone Plane Antler

5 Pauler 1 Plane Wood Whittle Wood Adze Wood

6 Pauler 1 Burin Antler/bone Plane Wood

7 Pauler 1 Scraper Hide

8 Pauler 1 Plane Antler/bone Scraper Meat

9 Pauler 1 0

10 Pauler 2 0

11 Pauler 3 0

12 Pauler 3 Saw Wood Saw Antler?

14 Pauler 3 0

15 Pauler 3 Plane Wood Scraper Wood

16 Pauler 3 Plane ? Scraper ?

17 Pauler 3 Plane Antler/bone Axe Antler/bone

18 Pauler 3 0

19 Pauler 3 0

20 Pauler 3 0

21 Pauler 4 Plane Wood Saw Wood Knife Plant

27 Pauler 4 0

28 Pauler 4 0

29 Pauler 6 Plane Wood Scraper Wood Shaft Wood Antler/bone

33 Bakke Plane Wood Scraper Wood Shaft Wood Antler/bone

34 Bakke 0

35 Bakke Knife Wood Saw Wood

36 Bakke Plane Wood Scraper Wood Shaft Wood Hide

12

38 Bakke Plane Hard

39 Elgsrud 0

40 Tinderholt 1 Plane Wood Whittle Wood

41 Tinderholt 1 Plane Wood

42 Hydal 4 Plane Wood

Table 4: Summary of use-wear directions and contact materials identified on the axes. Figure: Steinar 256

Solheim 257

The results from the use-wear analysis show that the flake axes were used to work several different 258

raw materials (table 4, table 5). A total of 37 different use-wear traces related to different contact 259

material were documented. For several specimens we have identified different use-wear as well as 260

working directions, which underlines the variation in the tool’s functionality. The most common 261

contact material is wood (67 %), most likely both dry and fresh wood. Some use-wear can be 262

interpreted as resulting from working either wood or hide, of which woodworking is the most likely 263

due to placing on the edge, work intensity and linear striations (figure 3). We have also been able to 264

document the use of flake axes for working antler or bone (14 %) as well as plants. Use-wear polish on 265

surfaces indicates the use of flake axes for working soft, animal products such as meat, tendons and 266

raw and worked hide (figure 4). 267

Site Wood Antler/Bone Hard material Plants Hide Meat Undefined Sum

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Pauler 1 8 22 3 8 1 3 1 3 13

Pauler 2 0

Pauler 3 3 8 2 6 3 8 8

Pauler 4 2 6 1 3 3

Pauler 6 2 6 2

Bakke 6 17 1 3 7

Elgsrud 0

Tinderholt 1 2 6 2

Hydal 4 1 3 1

Total 24 67 5 14 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 8 36

Table 5: Overview of types of contact material in the data set. Figure: Steinar Solheim 268

269

13

Figure 3: A: Microscope photo of axe # 5 from Pauler 1 showing use-wear from planning of wood. B: 270

Microscope photo of axe # 33 from Bakke showing contact with wood or hide/leather. This illustrates 271

some of the difficulties with distinguishing different contact material. Photo: Helena Knutsson. 272

273

Figure 4: A selection of axes with different use-wear. a) Scraping of dry hide (axe # 7, Pauler 1); b) 274

Raw hide/wet hide (axe #36, Bakke); c) Antler (axe #12, Pauler 3); d) Antler (axe # 17, Pauler 3); e) 275

Intensive contact with fresh wood or plant material (axe # 21, Pauler 4). Photo: Helena Knutsson. 276

3.1.3 Technology and morphology 277

14

The analysed axes vary in size and shape, and there is no clear connection between tool form and 278

function. Neither is there any significant relation between the attributes of the axes working edge 279

(angle, form and length) and type of use (figure 5). 280

Based on working edge shape and length, the analysed axes form two groups: flake axes and flake-281

chisels. Jaksland and Fossum (2014) suggest that the differences in working edge length imply 282

functional differences between the two groups. However, results from the use-wear analysis indicate 283

no distinct functional differences between the flake axes and the narrow-edged flake-chisels analysed 284

in this study. Similar, experiments carried out by H. Knutsson in 1982 showed that the tools are useful 285

for many different tasks, and that the function seems to relate to the symmetry of the axe working edge 286

rather than its length. 287

288

Figure 5: The plot show all different use directions identified on the analysed axes compared to the 289

size of the axes (length, width). Different sized axes have been used for the same tasks and there is no 290

clear pattern that indicates a connection between size and function. The numbers in the figure 291

corresponds to the numbering of axes in figure 2. Figure: Steinar Solheim 292

3.1.4 Raw materials 293

As grain size makes up an important part of the properties of flint, one might expect a preference for 294

certain types of flint, but this is not the case for the analysed axes. Rather, the results of the use-wear 295

analysis clearly indicate that contact material and wear directions are not raw material-dependent. 296

Axes made of coarse flint were used in the same manner and on the same type of contact material as 297

axes produced from fine-grained translucent flint. 298

3.1.5 Hafting 299

Very little is known about how flake axes were hafted (Juel Jensen 1988: 178). Hafting was not a main 300

concern of this study, yet some observations are worth commenting on. The large morphological 301

variation is already emphasised, but the combined measurements of axe width and thickness can 302

potentially provide us with some clues on how they were hafted. Morphological variation between 303

15

axes from the same sites suggests that a) all axes had individual shafts, b) the shaft was flexible, or c) 304

just some axes were hafted. Only three of the analysed axes bear evidence of hafting, and the results 305

are not uniform or conclusive. Some of the use-wear located on the lateral sides of the axe may have 306

been caused by using the axe as a scraper. 307

In a study of flake axes from Early Mesolithic sites in North-western Norway, John A. Havstein (2012) 308

identified significant morphological similarities between three axes from the same site. The axes had 309

almost identical butts suggesting that they were adjusted to fit the same shaft (Havstein, 2012: 79-80). 310

In order to explore this further, the application of morphometric analysis, in combination with use-311

wear studies, might have potential to shed further light on this topic. 312

4. DISCUSSION 313

4.1 Earlier research and interpretation 314

Recently, Ingrid Fuglestvedt (2014: 117–118) stated that the flake axe’s function has been, and still is, 315

an open question. There are only a few clues to what they were used for, and most hypothesis 316

concerning its function and use cannot be supported by solid evidence. A wide range of functions and 317

potential usage has been suggested. Of importance are the three published use-wear analysis of flake 318

axes from Swedish Mesolithic sites (Juel Jensen, 1988; Thorsberg, 1985; Knutsson, 1982). The 319

majority of the analysed axes in Knutsson’s (1982: 90) and Thorsberg’s (1985: 22) analysis have use-320

wear traces from scraping of hide and woodworking. The majority of Juel Jensen’s (1988: 175) 321

analysed axes have use-wear traces from butchering. Although these works are important for 322

interpreting use and function, these interpretations cannot be directly applied on Early Mesolithic flake 323

axes from South-eastern Norway. The axes analysed by Knutsson and Juel Jensen all belong to Late 324

Mesolithic assemblages from Scania, Southern Sweden. Hence, the chronological and geographical 325

distance, as well as the different environmental setting, to the Early Mesolithic of South-eastern 326

Norway is evident. Only Thorsberg’s axes are from an Early Mesolithic site, more precisely from 327

Lake Hornbogasjön, Sweden. The analyses only consist of three specimens with use-wear, and the low 328

number of studied axes makes it problematic to infer a general interpretation of the use and 329

functionality of flake axes. 330

331

The most common hypothesis in recent years is that flake axes were used as knives or scrapers for 332

butchering sea mammals, and procurement and processing of skin and blubber (e.g. Schmitt, 2013: 333

121; Bang-Andersen, 2013: 82; Wikell and Peterson 2013: 100; Havstein, 2012: 93; Schmitt et al., 334

2009: 13–14). This hypothesis is based on the close association between the distribution of axes and 335

the prehistoric coastlines and coastal areas. The much-used analogy to the Inuit ulus relies mostly on 336

the combination of geographical distribution and morphological similarities, particularly that the 337

central axis of both tools is perpendicular to a horizontal cutting edge (Schmitt 2013: 121). Based on 338

analogy to the younger Late Mesolithic Nøstvet adzes as well as the association with coastal areas, 339

Glørstad suggest the possibility that the flake axe was a woodworking tool used to carve out log boats 340

(Glørstad, 2013; 2011; cf. Fuglestvedt, 2014: 118). Our results cannot be taken as evidence for the 341

proposed connection between flake axes and log boats, but they certainly show that the tool has, 342

amongst other things, been used a woodworking tool. 343

344

4.2 Function, use and available raw materials, flora and fauna 345

The environmental and climatic setting in which the axes where used might have caused constraints in 346

raw material and resource availability, and in relation to the identified use-wear it is therefore relevant 347

16

to look into what resources that was available. 348

349

The Scandinavia Ice Sheet retreated from the region c. 10 600 – 10 000 cal. BC (Sørensen et al., 350

2014:173). During the Preboreal severe climatic changes took place and the climate gradually 351

developed from a cold to a milder climate. The sites where the flake axes were found are among the 352

oldest known in the region, and are dated between c. 9200-8400 cal. BC. During this period previously 353

unsettled and inhospitable landscapes became available, and a new flora and fauna was established. 354

The vegetation and fauna can, at least, during the early Preboreal be characterised as being in a 355

“pioneer condition”. 356

357

No organic remains are retrieved from Early Mesolithic contexts in South-eastern Norway. The few 358

and geographically closest finds that can inform us about what humans hunted in the Preboreal reveals 359

that both terrestrial and lacustrine resources were exploited (Ahlström and Sjögren, 2009; Kindgren, 360

1995). The available palynological and faunal data does not contradict the use-wear traces identified 361

on the flake axes. 362

363

Sørensen et al. (2014) have recently carried out pollen analytical investigations in the Pauler-region (cf. 364

figure 1). The earliest vegetation is characterised by low bushes, such as dwarf birch (Betula nana), 365

juniper (Juniperus), and sea-buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides). A variation of different herbs, plants 366

and grasses are also identified at an early date. Birch is the earliest tree type that is recorded in the 367

pollen assemblages (c. 9300–9000 cal. BC), followed by aspen (Popolus) (c. 9000–8500 cal. BC) and 368

soon pine (Pinus), hazel (Corylus) and elm (Ulmus) (8400–8000 cal. BC). During the Early Mesolithic 369

when the different archaeological sites were settled, an increasing wood cover is documented in the 370

region. Small tree species as well as the larger ones might very well have been used as raw materials. 371

From historical and modern times it is well known that for instance juniper has been used for a variety 372

of different purposes, such as building material, rope, fishing implements and tool shafts (Høeg, 1996). 373

Little is known about the vertebrate fauna in Norway during the Preboreal period. The fauna is mainly 374

known through finds of animal remains in natural deposits (e.g. Johansen and Undås, 1992). The 375

earliest fauna comprised most likely of sea mammals and sea birds as well as different fish species 376

(Jonsson, 2014: 162–165). The earliest C14-dated find of terrestrial mammals is a reindeer antler 377

(Rangifer tarandus), found in Egersund, Rogaland, dated to 10 440-9760 cal. BC (10 255±80 BP, T-378

8821). The Moose (Alces alces) was one of the first large mammal species to migrate into Norway 379

after the deglaciation, of which the earliest is C14-dated to 8450-8240 cal. BC (9100±50 BP, Poz-380

22238) (Grøndahl et al., 2010: 9–11). The antler is similar to Late Glacial and Early Holocene moose 381

antlers found in Denmark and Scania, and the find demonstrates that moose had arrived in South-382

eastern Norway in the late Preboreal period. This also indicates that large terrestrial mammals 383

colonised Norway as soon as the natural conditions made it possible (Grøndahl et al., 2010: 12). 384

385

The palynological evidence demonstrates that various tree species were available in the region, and 386

this supports the identification of use-wear resulted from working of wood. The natural deposits of 387

animal remains indicate a varied fauna, also including large, marine and terrestrial mammals. The 388

observation of wood and bone/antler as the dominant contact material is thus highly likely based on 389

the environmental background and documented available resources. 390

391

5. CONCLUSION 392

17

In this paper we have presented the results from a use-wear analysis of 42 flake axes. 13 specimens 393

could not be analysed due to damages to the edge and the lack of use-wear. 10 specimens are 394

considered as unused or that use-wear is either caused by or camouflaged by post depositional factors. 395

A total of 19 specimens have use-wear traces that are interpreted as related to prehistoric activity. 396

Identification of different work directions and contact materials clearly indicate that the flake axes 397

were utilised for a variety of tasks. Further, use-wear traces from different tasks and contact materials 398

are identified on one and the same specimen. Among the work directions planing and scraping is most 399

common. 400

We have identified a total of 37 different use-wear traces caused by at least five different contact 401

materials. Wood is dominating, followed by antler/bone. Previous interpretations have largely rejected 402

that the flake axe was a woodworking tool and rather emphasised its potential function as an ulu or 403

skin scraper. In that respect it is highly interesting that our results show that the dominant worked 404

material is wood. This clearly demonstrates the importance of use-wear analysis in order to interpret 405

tool function. 406

Our results show that the flake axe was a multi-tool (cf. Havstein 2012: 93; Juel Jensen 1988: 178; 407

Knutsson 1982: 90). This fits well with the context of which the analysed axes belonged to, namely 408

the colonisation of coastal South-eastern Norway during the Preboreal period and the following 409

centuries of settling this landscape. In that regard we argue that Early Mesolithic lithic technology and 410

tools display a functional flexibility within a rather rigid technological tradition, and hence 411

demonstrating the need for flexible toolkit (Breivik, 2016; Åstveit, 2014; Callanan, 2007; Waraas, 412

2001). This is also observed in the analysed data with regards to morphology, raw materials and 413

use/function. 414

Most hypothesis concerning the Preboreal flake axes’ function and use lack substantial and direct 415

evidence (cf. Fuglestvedt, 2014: 118; Åstveit, 2014b: 131). Rather than expecting one “correct” 416

answer our aim was to investigate whether previously suggested interpretations of the Early 417

Mesolithic flake axe based on, what we consider to be circumstantial evidence, could stand up to 418

scrutiny. For that matter, information on whether tools were used on hard or soft contact material 419

would probably have sufficed (Stevens et al., 2010: 2671-2672). 420

We acknowledge that use-wear analysis is interpretive archaeology (Van Gijn 2014: 168). However, 421

we also believe that it is important to gather information from different methodologies in order to 422

interpret the function of a prehistoric tool. With this in mind, and even though the data included in the 423

present analysis is limited considering time span, number of known axes and geographical distribution, 424

the results clearly provide a more solid foundation for discussing the functionality of flake axes from 425

Early Mesolithic Scandinavia. 426

427

Acknowledgements 428

The use-wear analysis was funded by the Dept. of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, 429

University of Oslo. We would like to thank our colleagues Carine Eymundsson, Lucia Koxvold and 430

Hege Damlien for valuable comments. 431

REFERENCES 432

Ahlström, T., Sjögren, K. G. 2009. Kvinnan från Österöd - ett tidigmesolitiskt skelett från Bohuslän. Situ - 433 Västsvensk Arkeologisk Tidskrift 2006-2007, 47-64. 434

18

Althin,C. A. G. 1954. The chronology of the Stone Age settlement of Scania, Sweden. Acta Archaeologica 435 Lundensia 4:1. Almqvist & Wiksell International. Stockholm. 436

Andersson, S., Cullberg, C., Rex, K., Wigforss, J. 1975. Sorteringsschema för kärn- och skivyxor av flinta. Vol. 437 58, Antikvariskt arkiv. Stockholm. 438

Åstveit, L. I. 2014. Noen synspunkt på den tidligmesolittiske bosetningen i Sør-Norge. Primitive tider 16, 87-439 104. 440

Bamforth, D.B. 1988. Investigating microwear polishes with blind tests: The Institute results in context. Journal 441 of Archaeological Science 15, 11-23. 442

Bamforth, D.B., Burns, G., Woodman, C. 1990. Ambiguous use traces and blind test results: New data. Journal 443 of Archaeological Science 17, 413-430. 444

Bang-Andersen, S. 2003. Southwest Norway at the Pleistocene/Holocene transition: landscape development, 445 colonization, site types, settlement patterns. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 36 (1), 5-25. 446

Bang-Andersen, S. 2013. Missing Boats–or Lacking Thoughts? Comments to Håkon Glørstad "Where are the 447 Missing Boats? The Pioneer Settlement of Norway as Long-Term History”. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 448 46(1), 81-83. 449

Bjerck, H. B. 1983. Kronologisk og geografisk fordeling av mesolitiske element i Vest-og Midt-Norge. 450 Unpublished thesis. University of Bergen. 451

Bjerck, H. B. 1986. The Fosna‐Nøstvet problem. A consideration of archaeological units and Chronozones in the 452 South Norwegian Mesolithic period. Norwegian Archaeological Review 19(2), 103-121. 453

Bjerck, H.B., 1995. Nordsjøfastlandet og pionerbosetningen i Norge. Viking LVII: 25-59. 454

Bjerck, H.B., 1995. The North Sea Continent and the pioneer settlement of Norway. In: A.Fischer, (ed.) Man 455 and sea in the Mesolithic: coastal settlement above and below present sea level: proceedings of the international 456 symposium, Kalundborg, Denmark 1993. Oxford: Oxbow Books, p. 131–144. 457

Bjerck, H. B. 2016. Settlements and Seafaring: Reflections on the Integration of Boats and Settlements Among 458 Marine Foragers in Early Mesolithic Norway and the Yámana of Tierra del Fuego. The Journal of Island and 459 Coastal Archaeology, 1-24. 460

Breivik, H. M., 2016. Dynamic relations between humans and environment in the earliest settlement phase of 461 Norway (9500-8000 cal BC). Doctoral thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. 462

Breivik, H. M., Callanan, M. 2016. Hunting High and Low: Postglacial Colonization Strategies in Central 463 Norway between 9500 and 8000 cal bc. European Journal of Archaeology 19(4), 571-595. 464

Brinch Petersen, E. 1966. Klosterlund-Sönder Hadsund-Böllund: Les trois sites principaux du Maglemosien 465 ancien en Jutland, essai de typologie et de chronologie. Acta Archaeologica 37, 77-185. 466

Burroni, D., Donahue, R. E., Pollard, A. M., Mussi, M. 2002. The surface alteration features of flint artefacts as a 467 record of environmental processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 29 (11), 1277-1287. 468

Callanan, M. 2007. On the edge: a survey of Early Mesolithic informal tools from Central Norway. Unpublished 469 master thesis. University of Trondheim. 470

Derndarsky. M., Ocklind, G. 2001: Some preliminary results on subsurface damage on experimental and 471 archaeological quartz tools using CLSM and dye. Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 1149-1158 472

19

Evans, A. A. 2014. On the importance of blind testing in archaeological science: the example from lithic 473 functional studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 5-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.026 474

Eymundsson, C., Fossum, G., Koxvold, L. U., Mansrud, A., Mjærum, A. 2017. Axes in Transformation - A 475 Bifocal View of Axe Technology in the Oslo Fjord Area, Norway, c. 9200-6000 cal. BC. In H. Knutsson, J. Apel, 476 H. Glørstad, K. Knutsson (Eds.), The Early Settlement of Northern Europe - Technology and Communication. 477 Equinox Publishing Ltd. Sheffield. 478

Glørstad, H. 2013. Where are the missing boats? The pioneer settlement of Norway as long-term history. 479 Norwegian Archaeological Review 46 (1), 57-80. DOI:10.1080/00293652.2013.777095. 480

Granados, T. 2011. Skiveøkser frå Vest-Noreg – ein analyse teknikk, klassifikasjon og distribusjon. Unpublished 481 master thesis. University of Bergen. 482

Grøndahl, F. A., Hufthammer, A. K., Dahl, S. O., Rosvold, J. 2010. A preboreal elk (Alces alces L., 1758) antler 483 from south-eastern Norway. Fauna Norvegica 30, 9-12. 484

Fredsjö, Å. 1953. Studier i Västsveriges äldre stenålder. Vol. 1, Skrifter. Arkeologiska Museet. Göteborg. 485

Fuglestvedt, I. 2012. The pioneer condition on the Scandinavian Peninsula: the last frontier of a ‘Palaeolithic 486 way’ in Europe. Norwegian Archaeological Review 45(1), 1-29. dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2012.669998 487

Fuglestvedt, I. 2014. Kommentar til Leif Inge Åstveit: "Noen synspunkter på den tidligmesolittiske bosetningen i 488 Sør-Norge". Primitive tider 16, 115- 119. 489

González-Urquijo, J. M. and Ibáñez-Estévez, J. J. 2003. The Quantification of use-wear poolish using image 490 analysis. First results. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 481-489. 491

Havstein, J.A., 2012. Skiveøksene fra Ormen Lange Nyhamna. Morfologi, framstilling og funksjon. 492 Unpublished master thesis. University of Trondheim 493

Høeg, H. I. 1996. Pollenanalytiske undersøkelser i "Østerdalsområdet" med hovedvekt på Rødsmoen, Åmot i 494 Hedmark. Universitetets oldsaksamling. Oslo. 495

Johansen, A. B., Undås, I. 1992. Er Blomvågmaterialet et boplassfunn. Viking 55, 9-26. 496

Johansson, A.D. 1998. Ældre Stenalder i sydlige Norden. Sammenslutligen af danske amatørarkeologer. 497

Jonsson, L. 2014. Vertebratfauna i Skageraaksområdet vid slutet av pleistocen och början av Holocen. In L. 498

Jaksland, P. Persson (Eds.), E18 Brunlanesprosjektet. Forutsetninger og kulturhistorisk sammenstilling. Bind 1. 499 Varia 79. Museum of Cultural History. University of Oslo. Oslo, 157-170. 500

Juel Jensen, H. 1988. Functional analysis of prehistoric flint tools by high-power microscopy: a review of west 501 European research. Journal of World Prehistory 2(1), 53-88. 502

Kindgren, H. 1995. Hensbacka-Hogen-Hornborgasjön: Early Mesolithic coastal and inland settlements in 503 western Sweden. In A. Fisher (ed.), Man and sea in the Mesolithic: coastal settlement above and below present 504 sea level. Oxbow Monograph 53. Oxford, 171-184. 505

Kjellmark, K. 1903. En stenåldersboplats i Järavallen vid Limhamn. Antiqvarisk tidskrift, 17(3). 506

Knutsson, H. 1982. Skivyxor. Experimentell analys av en redskapstyp från den den senatlantiska boplatsen vid 507 Soldattorpet. C-uppsats. Uppsala. 508

Knutsson, K., 1988. Making and using stone tools. The analysis of the lithic assemblages from Middle Neolithic 509 sites with flint in Västerbotten, northern Sweden. AUN 11. Uppsala. 510

20

Knutsson, K., Knutsson H., Dahlqvist, B. 1988. Microwear analysis of the flaked flint assemblage from the Late 511 Middle Neolithic site Bjurselet, Västerbotten, northern Sweden. In S. Beyries (ed.), Patterns of tool use. 512 Proceeding from the conference "Industries Lithiques: Traceologie et Technologie. Sophia Antipolis- Valbonne. 513 BAR International series. Oxford. 514

Knutsson, H., Knutsson, K., Taipale, N., Tallavaara, M., Darmark, K. 2015. How shattered flakes were used: 515 micro-wear analysis of quartz flake fragments. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 2, 517-531. 516 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.04.008 517

Jaksland, L., Fossum, G. (2014). Kronologiske trender i det littiske funnmaterialet. In L. Jaksland, P. Persson 518 (Eds.), E18 Brunlanesprosjektet. Forutsetninger og kulturhistorisk sammenstilling. Bind 1. Varia 79. Museum of 519 Cultural History. University of Oslo. Oslo, 41-62. 520

Levi-Sala, I. 1996. A study of microscopic polish on flint implements. British Archaeological Report 521 International Series 629. Archaeopress. 522

Lerner, H., Du, X., Costopoulos, A., & Ostoja-Starzewski, M. 2007. Lithic raw material physical properties and 523 use-wear accrual. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(5), 711-722. 524

Lidén, O. 1938. Sydsvensk stenålder belyst av fynden på boplatserna i Jonstorp1: Skivyxkulturen (Vol. 1). Lund. 525

Mathiassen, T. 1937. Gudenaa kulturen. Aarbøger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie, 1937. København. pp. 526 101-186. 527

Mathiassen, T. 1948. Danske oldsager 1, ældre stenalder. København. 528

Müller, S. 1888 Ægredskaber fra den ældre stenalder. Aarbøger for nordisk oldkyndighed og historie, 1888. 529 København. pp. 238-260. 530

Nyland, A., Amundsen, T. 2012. Bakke - boplass fra tidligmesolitikum. In L. Jaksland (Ed.), E18 531 Brunlanesprosjektet. Bind III. Undersøkte lokaliteter fra tidligmesolitikum og senere. Varia 80. Museum of 532 Cultural History, University of Oslo. Oslo, 3-58 533

Odell, G.H., 2003. Lithic Analysis. Springer. New York. 534

Plisson, H., Mauger, M. 1988. Chemical and mechanical alteration of microwear polishes: an experimental 535 approach. Helinium 28(1), 3-16. 536

Rots, V., Plisson, H. 2014. Projectiles and the abuse of the use-wear method in a search for impact. Journal of 537 Archaeological Science 48, 154-165. 538

Rydbeck, O. 1916. Några iakttagelser beträffande vissa yxtyper från stenåldern. Fornvännen 11: 119-146. 539

Schmitt, L. 2013. A note concerning flake axes and umiaks. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32(1), 119-122. 540

Schmitt, L. 2015. Early colonization, glacial melt water, and island mass effect in the archipelago of western 541 Sweden: A case history. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 34(2), 109-117. 542

Schmitt, L., Larsson, S., Burdukiewicz, J., Ziker, J., Svedhage, K., Zamon, J., Steffen, H. 2009. Chronological 543 insights, cultural change, and resource exploitation on the west coast of Sweden during the Late 544 Palaeolithic/Early Mesolithic transition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 28(1), 1-27. 545

Sørensen, R., Høeg, H.I., Henningsmoen, K.E., Skog, G., Labowsky, S.F., Stabel, B. 2014. Utviklingen av det 546 senglasiale og tidlig preboreale landskapet og vegetasjon omkring steinalderboplassene ved Pauler, Larvik 547 kommune, Vestfold. In L. Jaksland, P. Persson, (Eds.), E18 Brunlanesprosjektet Bind 1. Forutsetninger og 548 kulturhistorisk sammenstilling. Varia 79. Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo. Oslo, 171-293. 549

21

Stevens, N. E. Harro and D.R. Hicklin, A. 2010. Practical quantitative lithic use-wear analysis using multiple 550 classifyiers. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 2671-2678. 551

Taipale, N. 2012. Micro vs. Macro. A Microwear Analysis of Quartz Artefacts from Two Finnish Late 552 Mesolithic Assemblages with Comments on the Earlier Macrowear Results, Wear Preservation and Tool Blank 553 Selection. Unpublished Master thesis. Uppsala University/University of Helsinki. 554

Thorsberg K. 1985. Brukssporsanalys av valda artefakter från två tidigmesolitiska boplatser vid Hornborgasjön. 555 Tor 20, 11-44. 556

Troels-Smith J. 1937. Beile aus dem Mesolithicum Dänemarks. Ein einteilungsversuch. Acta Archaeologica VIII, 557 278-295. 558

Troels-Smith, J.1939. Stenalderbopladser og Strandlinier paa Amager. Meddelelser fra Dansk Geologisk 559 Forening. København. 560

Van Gijn, A. L. 2014. Science and interpretation in microwear studies. Journal of Archaeological Science 48, 561 166-169. 562

Vaughan, P., 1985. Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press. Tucson. 563

Waraas T.A. 2001. Vestlandet i tidlig Preboreal tid. Fosna, Ahrensburg eller vestnorsk tidlegmesolitikum? 564 Unpublished thesis. Universitetet i Bergen. 565

Wikell, R. and M. Petterson 2013. Do I feel lucky today? Reply to Håkon Glørstad (2013): Where are the 566 Missing Boats? The Pioneer Settlement of Norway as Long-Term History, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 567 DOI:10.1080/00293652.2013.777095. 568

Åstveit, L. I. 2014. Noen synspunkter på den tidligmesolittiske bosetningen i Sør-Norge. Primitive tider 16: 87-569 105. 570

title: authors

Documents